Karol Szymanowski: King Roger

The name “Szymanowski” caught my attention, having written my previous Listen Journal on Maria Szymanowski, the “Polish Field” of the Romantic Era. Despite my finding that “no family relationship has been claimed between Maria Agata Szymanowski and the later Polish composer Karol Szymanowski” (Spiegl, 1997), I was curious to find out more about how Polish Nationalism was being seen in the 20th Century through Szymanowski's opera, King Roger. What I found in place of Polish Nationalism was quite a surprise.

King Roger is considered Szymanowski's greatest work, named after (and vaguely based on) King Roger II of Sicily. It is an opera in three acts that reflects the 20th Century exploration of the subconscious, as the opera tells the tale of King Roger's jealousy for a mysterious Shepherd. This journey into the psyche begins as early as King Roger's entrance. King Roger, his advisor, Edrisi, and Queen Roxana enter to the sounds of an adoring crowd, singing their praise to their King. The mood shifts as King Roger asks Edrisi for advice, unmasking his stately facade. The character of the King is contrasted with the mysterious and playful Shepherd. (Downes, 1995)

All of these elements are well reflected in the musical expression. Symanowski’s use of the orchestra to convey the mood and actions resembles Wagner's Leitmotivs. As mentioned, the journey into the psyche begins as early as King Roger's entrance. The three powers enter to the sounds of harmonic and melodic chant by the chorus. The music resembles that of church music from the medieval era in its simplicity and purity. The transfer from the chorus to King is drastic as King Roger opens with his solo. King Roger’s use chromaticism and semitones seems to slide in awkwardly as he seeks advice, especially after the chorus’s plainchant-like recognition. This unhinged chromaticism of the King contrasting with the Shepherd is reflected musically as well; The Shepherd’s parts are lighter and more melodic, giving him a more certain, playful sound. (Downes, 1995)

Szymanowski's piece is extremely collaborative in its Nationalities and styles to create King Roger. First off, the opera centers on a Sicilian King, who experiences a situation that parallels Euripides's The Bacchae. Szymanowski's interest in other civilizations comes into play when he adopts styles from Byzantine in the first act, India in the second act, and Greco-Rome in the third act. (Wightman, 1975) Szymanowski's use of Hellenic style in the third act is no accident, as this is the act in which the Shepherd transforms into Dionysus, the Greek god of wine.

Szymanowski's King Roger is a collaborative work of many different aspects of music, in ways that had not been so vastly discovered. The blending of the line from Romantic era and 20th Century music makes for a compelling and powerful opera, not to mention the numerous Nationalities brought together into one piece. Despite these many inspirations and concepts, it’s hard to find any firm indication of Polish Nationalism after all. Instead, Szymanowski created a “Stone Soup” of sound for his opera from surrounding inspiration. It is difficult to box it in because of this mixture of eras, styles, and Nationalities. While it is not what I consider something to include in the canon, it is nevertheless a magnificent piece that reflects well the emerging values of the 20th Century.

John Field “Sonatas and Nocturnes”

Since I had begun research on Field and his Nocturnes already from researching Maria Szymanowska, and one of my fellow students had researched Field, it seemed appropriate to continue the investigation on, as Joshua Hey said Field was called, 'creator “of the style of pianism regarded as ‘Chopinesque’ (Langley, 2009).”' An excellent way to illustrate Field's style being called “Chopinesque” was a conversation that followed between two of the music library's librarians about John Field when I asked to check out the CD:

Librarian 1: Field sounds so much like Chopin...
Librarian 2: What? No! Chopin sounds like Field!
Librarian 1: Yeah, but no one knows who Field is.
Librarian 2: That still doesn't mean he didn't come before Chopin.
Librarian 1: Have you ever heard a non-musician talking about Field??

While then I was ready to ask Librarian 1, “Have you ever heard a non-musician talking about Chopin?”, the conversation did bring up an interesting point: why is it Field has been forgotten? Can there be a time and place that directly pinpoints Field being overshadowed by Chopin, were there multiple reasons for Chopin to receive credit for this style, or is it simply by chance? I sought to answer these questions.

Something to consider is that many of Field's publications in London were published anonymously (Temperley, 1975). While this is no basis for drawing any sort of conclusion, it does paint the character of Field as someone who is not interested in fame; or, least not through his compositional work. His main focus seemed revolved around working as a concert pianist. General difficulties with finding documentation of the Nocturne's early publication dates, locations, etc. could also tie into this (Temperley, 1974).

Another factor was the slow acceptance of the Nocturne, since the use of complicated bass rhythms was not yet seen by audiences. “A technical problem confronted composers of piano music at this time: how to combine an expressive melody in the treble with well-spaced harmonies maintained at a constant dynamic level, all under the hands of a single player, who could give a freely personal interpretation impossible in (say) a four-hand duet.” (Temperley, 1975) These new and complicated techniques used in the Nocturne might have been a factor in its slow early growth.

Regardless of the reason, Field's works are revolutionary, and do not seem well recognized for their fresh and wondrous new look at the potential of the piano. To you, Joshua Hey, I do not only “suppose” that we give Field thanks, but give it to him without restraint, and a warm hand shake along with it!